Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales

Apple has responded to speculation that its App Store policies could bar …

Apple has responded to the furor over its supposed App Store policy changes that many believe could affect the popular Kindle, Nook, and Sony Reader apps. The company claims it has not changed any of its guidelines given to developers, but it indirectly confirms that accessing content purchased elsewhere could be a no-no if that content isn't also available to be purchased through Apple's own system.

"We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Apple spokesperson Trudy Muller told Ars. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

Buzz began Tuesday morning when the New York Times said that Sony's e-reader app had been rejected, citing Apple's restriction on in-app book purchases. This in itself was not a new policy—Apple doesn't allow apps to sell content to users unless that content passes through the official Apple ecosystem, where Apple gets a 30 percent cut.

Apple also allegedly told Sony that the app couldn't access content purchased on other Sony Reader devices, which is where most of the outrage was focused. Amazon's Kindle app and Barnes & Noble's Nook app are both popular mechanisms for users to download and read books that they have purchased from the respective stores. Many feared that this supposed change in Apple policy would take their e-books away from their iPads, iPhones, and iPod touches.

Apple's second statement indicates that this is indeed the case—sort of. If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's website, for example, then that same app must also let users buy the same book via Apple's own in-app purchase system. If the app developer doesn't want to use Apple's in-app purchases to sell content, then the app can't access content purchased elsewhere either.

This is notable because it will require Amazon and Barnes & Noble (as well as Sony, whose iOS app is not yet available) to change how their offerings work. Apple wants its 30 percent share of content sales whenever possible.

Amazon has already gone all-in with its "Buy Once, Read Everywhere" tagline, so it probably can't afford to back out of the iOS platform now. The alternative appears to be an user interface nightmare: re-structuring its sales mechanisms in order to allow customers to buy from both Amazon and Apple (a move that will chafe Amazon execs) or from Apple alone (even more chafing).

Sony, for its part, still has not responded to our requests for comment. The company did post a note on its website, however, noting that it has "opened a dialog with Apple to see if we can come up with an equitable resolution but reached an impasse at this time." The company says it's exploring other ways to bring its Reader to iOS devices, indicating that it may try other routes in order to avoid the App Store tax.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

Apple is leveraging a monopoly position (control of all iOS applications) to unfairly disadvantage a competitor in another sector (iBooks vs Kindle). [\quote]

Except the part where - Apple is not requiring purchases through the app- Apple doesn't have a monopoly on mobile OSes- Apple doesn't have a monopoly on ebooks- Apple doesn't have a monopoly on mobile devices

"Flamebait -1" on the title, and based on the number of posts, good job!

Apple said that if alternate distribution (such as through the web, etc) is used, then is must also be available for in-app purchase.

"if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

Nowhere did they say "exclusively for in-app purchase". They're not requiring a cut, and the title of this article is blatantly NOT what Apple said. I see this as they want to keep the iOS experience seamless - and "jump out to Safari to buy books then jump back to the app to read them" isn't seamless.

Nowhere in the thread does anyone imply that's the case. The only people claiming that are the fanboy damage control brigade trying to dangle red herring into the comments.

Ars is now a troll - shameful. Ars should fix the title and be more clear as to what the policy is.

Apple is NOT requiring an in-app purchase. It is requiring the option to buy from iTunes from apps if that app allows purchases through it's own store.

Quality of Ars reporting has been spiraling down recently. They're becoming sensationalist like most of the mainstream crap press.

Z.

A good point as to the actual policy. Which is more likely to clear app store review:

An app with two icons, one that makes it clear purchases can be made from the App store at 43% markup and another that demonstrates purchases can be made via the web at no mark up.

Or an app that defaults to in-app purchases unless you change a default setting or option buried somewhere?

Call me cynical or whatever you want, my money goes on the first one being rejected until it looks like the second. Of Course it could be paranoia, what other app in the store has had to comply with this? How does it work?

And of course this is all speculation, but that's what makes it fun right?

Ars, this is some of the worst reporting that I have ever seen on this site. I am so glad that I ran across this news on AppleInsider first, which summarized and linked to a report on The Digital Daily by John Paczkowski, whom also talked to Trudy Muller.

However, he came to the proper conclusion from what she said instead of this erroneous conclusion which is stirring up a lot of hatred for little reason. They also went on to point out in their article EXACTLY why Apple is doing this, with references to the past where they ended up on the short end of the stick by not keeping control of their developer market (see Adobe which rose to prominence on the Mac and then abandoned it when they found it most beneficial).

Here are the facts of this story as quoted from John Paczkowski:

Quote:

“We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Muller told me. “*We are now requiring* that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”

In other words: You don’t have to buy books, or music, or other media that you consume on iOS apps from Apple. But developers must offer you the option to buy that stuff through Apple and its iTunes-backed system.

I know that a few readers here caught that as well. Apple is not forcing anyone to buy their content through the App Store, they are simply stating that they have to offer the option of purchasing through the App Store. Also, I do not recall anything in the policy about price comparisons. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that anyone can charge more from the in-app purchases then purchases from your own network.

Oh, and for all of you that think Android is your savior from this new curated and walled-garden approach to app purchases think again. Within the last week Google's Android platform manager, Eric Chu, told Forbes' Oliver Chiang that he (speaking in an official capacity for Google) "wants to clean up Android Market, saying there is a team tasked with 'weeding out apps that violate Android Market’s terms of service,' an indication that Google's free-for-all market design is recognized to have serious drawbacks." Android users, welcome to your future, a curated and controlled App Store.

In the end though, it is very simple. If you don't like the policy don't buy Apple products. However, be prepared for others to follow suit, because like it or not Apple is doing VERY well in a market that has in general been hurting. So, others are going to mimic their tactics as much as possible.

So according to Trudy: "they are now requiring" as in, they didn't require it before. So, that means that either it was in the rules and not enforced, or they're trying to pull a fast one.

Second, about android. Yes, google is becoming the new big evil. Not quite as insidious as apple, but they have the potential. It's really not an issue, with root you don't even really need google. You don't even need the market to load apps on your android device. I can't even begin to tell you the amount of stuff that I've sideloaded onto my EVO. Google can restructure their market, no big deal. I can still load apps via the mobile browser, pc connect, and sd card. They're not doing it to create a walled garden but more to try to replicate the earning potential that appdevs have on the apple side of things.

Where does that say that apple 'prohibits' any sales unless they get a cut?!? They simply require that the books are available both within the app and outside of the app. The user is to choose.

Because forcing them to sell Kindle books through Apple's system would mean that Amazon either has to raise the price or give away their entire cut. That's why it's not just as simple as making the books available in the app. Even if Amazon were somehow willing to give up all profits for books sold in the iOS Kindle app since it would have to use Apple infrastructure, Amazon would still end up losing money, because a Kindle book can be downloaded on any device. This is Apple effectively telling Amazon to fuck off and get off of iOS, without actually saying it.

He who deals with record companies should look to it that he himself does not become a record company. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

-- with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche.

And just to put this into perspective: you all realize that it's about ADDING a second way of buying something, right? Not replacing or removing anything. I thought it was clear from the piece, but some of the comments in this thread made me wonder.

The nightmare scenario for Apple is that all iOS apps become 'shells' that Apple freely distributes and provides QA for, while the app developers include schemes for taking the customers money without Apple seeing a dime. Apple is left bearing substantial costs with only a $99 per year developer fee to pay for them.

The nightmare scenario for Amazon and other content retailers is that they will be completely undermined from selling to lucrative iOS users. Content producers and publishers will simply go directly to Apple. Even more nightmarish if the iPad becomes the next iPod and Apple ends up processing 70% of paid digital print media.

Reality will probably fall somewhere in between, and Apple and Amazon are jockeying for position. Apple is seeing how far it can push the content retailers and publishers without thoroughly pissing off them, or the end customers, or the regulators. Apple played this game with third party dev tools and interpreted code last year, and they eventually had to back down.

The big question is: can the pricing differ? Could Amazon offer a book for $7.99 through its website and $11.41 through Apple?

Both companies have shown in the past that they're willing to play hard, but Amazon has a bigger trump card here, since any move to ban the Kindle app will hand Apple a ton of negative press.

Two words: agency pricing. Which, surprise, Apple helped institute! That means the book must sell for the same amount no matter where it's sold! So Amazon would have to offer it for $7.99 through Apple, too. Wonder who would end up paying the extra 30%?

And this is where it bothers me. I don't own a single iOS or Apple device, but I'm going to end up footing the bill on the Apple tax to read on my Kindle/Android/PC.

I highly doubt Apple will allow in-app purchases to not have price parity with external purchases.

++

Agency pricing is the shoe in the works here when it comes to making ebooks available and apply trying to mandate what their cut will be, cause someone already beat them to that.

The other thing that makes no sense in this regard is that in part are we not talking about access to something I have ALREADY purchased.. So I buy a book for my sony reader from Sony, but now to access what I've already purchased, Sony has to allow apple to sell the same book in it's iStore?? Huh? it's not like I'm going to buy it a second time, why does it need to be in the frelling store?

Where else in life does any manufacturer of a device get this much control over what you can do with it? It's not like ford insists that anyone that sells a replacement stereo ALSO provide it to ford to sell vial their dealers

HP doesn't insist that amazon make books available through some HP store just because I could run the kindle for PC app and buy a book that way for my laptop.

Starbucks is experimenting with an app to let you order and pay for a late' while you are in line, does that mean that they also have to make all the drinks on their menu available via the apple iStore?

what is this? We are the great and powerful apple, all your iOS, and Apps for the iOS, and Data for the apps are belong to us? I know that's a bit extreme, but it feels more and more that is what apple wants to do.

He who deals with record companies should look to it that he himself does not become a record company. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

-- with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche.

And just to put this into perspective: you all realize that it's about ADDING a second way of buying something, right? Not replacing or removing anything. I thought it was clear from the piece, but some of the comments in this thread made me wonder.

I think it's more than that. Amazon could easily change the app so that one would have to sync books to PC then sync those books to your iOS device through iTunes. It's Apple's way of saying content not purchased through Apple, or at least offered to be purchased through Apple, doesn't belong on your iOS device*.

I thought Apple's whole claim to fame was simplicity. The Kindle and iBooks app are pretty simple as they are now. But now let's de-simplify (my word for it) the competing app.

I think the key is going to be if Apple forces the Apple app price to be the same as the price on the other party's site. If they do that then YES they are screwing the public out of 30% or 43% because nobody will be able to eat the 30% that Apple now takes and will have to raise their prices or drop the Apple app altogether. If Apple doesn't require both prices be the same then Amazon and everyone else raises the price within the Apple app and anyone that pays more to buy the same item within the Apple app is an idiot.

The e-book sellers should just offer customers the ability to buy from within the iOS app, but at a 43% mark-up, thus passing along the Apple tax to customers. I'm sure that the customers would know exactly at whom to direct their ire.

The problem for Amazon, which Apple well knows, is that they can't do this, or it will drive people over to the iBookStore where prices will stay the same. Basically they want to make it economically impossible for Amazon to sell content on iDevices, thereby giving their own iBookstore a significant advantage.

Quote:

They could also offer a link directly to the item in their non-Apple store that opens in the browser.

The Kindle store already does open in the browser (or if it doesn't, you could have fooled me...it sure looks like a mobile website running in Safari). As far as I can tell, other than the one-time download of the app, there is no Apple involvement in any Kindle transactions.

I'm wondering how the recent flap over agency pricing fits into this. It seems to me that when the dust settled on that, the result was that Amazon had to sell ebooks at whatever price the publisher told it to sell at. So Amazon's ebook profits would essentially be dictated by the publishers.

Now, if I understand this latest move, Apple are saying Amazon must sell ebooks via the iPhone App Store, and for all ebooks sold there, Amazon must give Apple 30% of the selling price. So, if the publisher of My Awesome eBook dictates a price at which Amazon can only profit by 20%, then Amazon would literally be losing money on every ebook which is sold via the iPhone App Store.

And yes, Amazon may still sell ebooks via their own store as well as via the App Store. But if the above is true, there is potentially a whole class of ebooks it can no longer afford to allow to reach the iPhone/iPad. If this class of ebooks is too large, then the squeeze is too great, and Amazon has no choice but to pull the Kindle Reader out of the App Store and abandon iPhone/iPad.

I don't know how much of the above is correct. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, but at first look, I have to agree with Aurich. Seems like a dick move.

The nightmare scenario for Apple is that all iOS apps become 'shells' that Apple freely distributes and provides QA for, while the app developers include schemes for taking the customers money without Apple seeing a dime. Apple is left bearing substantial costs with only a $99 per year developer fee to pay for them.

The nightmare scenario for Amazon and other content retailers is that they will be completely undermined from selling to lucrative iOS users. Content producers and publishers will simply go directly to Apple. Even more nightmarish if the iPad becomes the next iPod and Apple ends up processing 70% of paid digital print media.

Reality will probably fall somewhere in between, and Apple and Amazon are jockeying for position. Apple is seeing how far it can push the content retailers and publishers without thoroughly pissing off them, or the end customers, or the regulators. Apple played this game with third party dev tools and interpreted code last year, and they eventually had to back down.

$99 isn't all they get. They also move devices because they have that killer app and always seem to have it first. Because an iPad can take the place of a Kindle currently. Because it has games. Like I said, Apple already distributes plenty of free apps and they make up a lot through iAds. Less profitable? Maybe. Unprofitable? Not likely.

Since so many devices are being moved anyway shouldn't Apple be more concerned with how to fix iBooks rather than convolute a competitor's app?

To add some context the iPhone has 4% of the mobile phone market. To all of those shouting anti-trust.

The iPad does have 80% of the tablet market. But that's only because most other tablets currently suck, that's not Apple's fault.

jonabbey wrote:

Sure, businesses are absolutely meant to be profit-seeking entities. They are also meant to be disciplined by competition in the market, which Android is doing for Apple. So long as Apple does not obtain monopoly (exclusionary) leverage over smart phones and/or tablets, they can try to do anything that they think will make them a buck.

Your understanding of antitrust laws is severely lacking.

Apple is leveraging a monopoly position (control of all iOS applications) to unfairly disadvantage a competitor in another sector (iBooks vs Kindle). Two examples of similar cases: Internet Explorer bundling (banning of Netscape), and Google Adsense prioritizing. Microsoft utilized their monopoly (sole provider of the critical Windows Operating System) to unfairly disadvantage their competitor (Internet Explorer vs Netscape Navigator), were found liable, and forced to pay by the antitrust court. Google's case is ongoing.

Wow! This is pretty much the definition of "irony". You obviously know nothing about antitrust, so your calling out someone else is pretty laughable. Antitrust laws apply, or don't apply, depending on the scope of the market being addressed. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY knowledgeable would consider Apple's monopoly over iOS applications as an appropriate scope for antitrust laws and regulations. Similarly, NOBODY would consider Microsoft's monopoly on Windows to be of appropriate scope either. However, Microsoft's monopoly on consumer operating systems IS an appropriate scope. Quit spouting off on stuff you know NOTHING ABOUT.

I'm wondering how the recent flap over agency pricing fits into this. It seems to me that when the dust settled on that, the result was that Amazon had to sell ebooks at whatever price the publisher told it to sell at. So Amazon's ebook profits would essentially be dictated the publishers.

Now, if I understand this latest move, Apple are saying Amazon must sell ebooks via the iPhone App Store, and for all ebooks sold there, Amazon must give Apple 30% of the selling price.

No, as I understand it Amazon must offer the option to buy the same content through both its in-app store and Apple's store. No exclusives, say something like the Compleat Harry Potter.

No, as I understand it Amazon must offer the option to buy the same content through both its in-app store and Apple's store. No exclusives, say something like the Compleat Harry Potter.

Yes, I said that in the third paragraph, which you did not quote. My point is that there may be a class of ebooks for which every sale via Apple's store loses money for Amazon (or any other ebookseller).

Its no more an identity crisis than any other computer. The iPad is not a single purpose device like the Kindle. It runs whatever software that's designed for it.

iBooks has to pay 30% too.

matthevil wrote:

It seems like a bit of identity crisis at this point. It also seems like an attempt to leverage the device for a cut of Amazon sales that cost Apple nothing except for iBooks sales in return. This is definitely anti-competitive and it smacks of disbelief that iBooks can tackle Amazon which is a shame since I would expect more of Apple.

Just as an added point I would rather Apple innovate and get creative and competitive (price wise) with iBooks to combat Amazon. Instead they used App Store policy to make up for lost iBooks sales by charging Amazon.

Just as an added point I would rather Apple innovate and get creative and competitive (price wise) with iBooks to combat Amazon. Instead they used App Store policy to make up for lost iBooks sales by charging Amazon.

How so? I find the prices on Amazon to be far better in many cases than what I see in iBooks. Granted only the Kindle device can deliver newspapers and magazines and not the apps (due to distributor restrictions or something). Why do I need a Wired app if they can distribute it through iBooks or iNewsStand or whatever. Why isn't Apple pushing to deliver newspapers and magazines that way? That's the innovative part I was talking about.

Ars is now a troll - shameful. Ars should fix the title and be more clear as to what the policy is.

Apple is NOT requiring an in-app purchase. It is requiring the option to buy from iTunes from apps if that app allows purchases through it's own store.

If you read the quote from the Apple rep literally, you would be correct. However, if a book seller complied and made an in-app purchase possible most buyers would use it. But without a price increase to compensate the 30% Apple tax, that platform would no longer be economically viable and book sellers would be forced to remove the app.

IF books can be purchased through the iOS app for 30% more than elsewhere, would this fly with people? Would Apple allow it? Do Apple's terms require the content to be available at the same price? It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Based on this thread, Apple had better give in a little somewhere.

Its no more an identity crisis than any other computer. The iPad is not a single purpose device like the Kindle. It runs whatever software that's designed for it.

iBooks has to pay 30% too.

matthevil wrote:

It seems like a bit of identity crisis at this point. It also seems like an attempt to leverage the device for a cut of Amazon sales that cost Apple nothing except for iBooks sales in return. This is definitely anti-competitive and it smacks of disbelief that iBooks can tackle Amazon which is a shame since I would expect more of Apple.

And it has run the Kindle app as-is for quite some time. It's why I picked up the device. Why the sudden change (identity crisis might be a bit strong but if it affects other apps soon)? Why now is content delivered through a website while not having an iTunes counter part a bad thing? iBooks also delivers direct through Apples infrastructure and Amazon does not. That's why iBooks isn't an issue as far as delivery. So why doesn't iBooks branch out a bit and let me purchase content through the web without the mark up? Who runs iBooks?

Remind me again why I never bought an Apple product? Oh, that's right: this, among other things.But I am sure the Apple fan boys will soon come by to give me my free entertainment by licking their Master's boots and justifying this deranged behavior somehow.

I'm going to lick your boots just for being a time-traveller. It must be awesome to have a time machine and not just be somebody trying to justify a past decision by claiming that they knew unknowable facts.

Another poorly written article. If this is true then I think it is a bad move on Apple's part. Still, all the venom seems completely out of proportion. This doesn't change the fact that people will not, and have not, been prevented from purchasing content out-of-band. The interesting question is whether Apple will try to force the same pricing from in-App vs. out-of-band means. There are two possibilities:

1) It won't, in which case vendors can simply adjust prices to accommodate Apple's cut, if any. What this means is that customers will have two choices instant gratification in-App for a price, or use existing channels for a lower price. I know for sure that, if I had an iOS device (which I don't), I would not be inclined to pay much of a premium for that convenience--certainly, not 30% for something that is more than $1.

2) It will. If they do that then I have to question whether they've completely thought this through. I'm not a lawyer, but attempting to enforce pricing is a no-no in many markets and may come up against legal challenges.

I suspect that it is the former and this strategy somehow goes hand-in-glove with the new periodical subscription model that they're starting with News Corporation's "The Daily". If I were Apple I'd consider lowering my cut to something approaching a credit card transaction fee. 30% seems exorbitant, but I understand their thinking (even if I don't agree): they get a 30% cut of an App purchase price, which is actually a very small markup when compared to normal retail channels. But, now they've got a bunch of Apps which are funded through content (the Apps are free), so they want to try monetize the value of the App, rather than just it's purchase price. I think, that pretty much sums it up. Still, someone should tell them that trying to monetize everything can be very counterproductive.

Another poorly written article. If this is true then I think it is a bad move on Apple's part. Still, all the venom seems completely out of proportion. This doesn't change the fact that people will not, and have not, been prevented from purchasing content out-of-band. The interesting question is whether Apple will try to force the same pricing from in-App vs. out-of-band means. There are two possibilities:

1) It won't, in which case vendors can simply adjust prices to accommodate Apple's cut, if any. What this means is that customers will have two choices instant gratification in-App for a price, or use existing channels for a lower price. I know for sure that, if I had an iOS device (which I don't), I would not be inclined to pay much of a premium for that convenience--certainly, not 30% for something that is more than $1.

2) It will. If they do that then I have to question whether they've completely thought this through. I'm not a lawyer, but attempting to enforce pricing is a no-no in many markets and may come up against legal challenges.

I suspect that it is the former and this strategy somehow goes hand-in-glove with the new periodical subscription model that they're starting with News Corporation's "The Daily". If I were Apple I'd consider lowering my cut to something approaching a credit card transaction fee. 30% seems exorbitant, but I understand their thinking (even if I don't agree): they get a 30% cut of an App purchase price, which is actually a very small markup when compared to normal retail channels. But, now they've got a bunch of Apps which are funded through content (the Apps are free), so they want to try monetize the value of the App, rather than just it's purchase price. I think, that pretty much sums it up. Still, someone should tell them that trying to monetize everything can be very counterproductive.

I'm still not sure why iBooks doesn't have a newsstand type section to it. Charge $X for the yearly Daily subscriptions (with whatever cut) with each new issue being pushed automatically to the device or account etc. Isn't that what most people do now anyway? Instead give us digital editions with enhanced content but keep the same model we're used to in print. Buy a subscription (even if it means a bit higher price of entry) just keep the fee reasonable (not as low as print, not as high as individual print issue pricing).

Ars is now a troll - shameful. Ars should fix the title and be more clear as to what the policy is.

Apple is NOT requiring an in-app purchase. It is requiring the option to buy from iTunes from apps if that app allows purchases through it's own store.

You forgot: "If the app developer doesn't want to use Apple's in-app purchases to sell content, then the app can't access content purchased elsewhere either." This is anti-competitive. Allow people to buy through iTunes, or no one gets any benefit from the app. Because of course, people use the Kindle(or any other reader app) app to read.

I need to ask though, why would the Kindle app be approved anyway, if this was the case all along. It's like they're pulling the rug out from under Amazon and it's customers. Same for B&N. Apple didn't know people were buying through the browser and reading books through the app? Who believes that? Something is going on here. I don't know if Apple got a case of greed or is trying to get rid of other reader apps now, but something's not right here.

Echinda he said among other things, ie he has seen a pattern of behavior. I think its a pretty safe guess the "other things" led to his initial decision not to buy an apple product and the "current" thing backs up that original decision. No time traveling required.

Apple is leveraging a monopoly position (control of all iOS applications) to unfairly disadvantage a competitor in another sector (iBooks vs Kindle). Two examples of similar cases: Internet Explorer bundling (banning of Netscape), and Google Adsense prioritizing. Microsoft utilized their monopoly (sole provider of the critical Windows Operating System) to unfairly disadvantage their competitor (Internet Explorer vs Netscape Navigator), were found liable, and forced to pay by the antitrust court. Google's case is ongoing.

I'm an Apple user and I don't like this decision at all, but I think its you who isn't exactly an expert in anti-trust. Having absolute control of iOS in no way makes Apple a monopoly. The relevant market is "mobile devices" of which iOS is, as was quoted before, around 4%. Even if you use the market of "smartphones" Apple doesn't even have a plurality never mind a majority or monopoly. Even if you look at "mobile devices that are capable of displaying ebooks", which might be the most salient category Apple has the market share lead in, its still not a majority.

No US court is even remotely going to give Apple the anti-trust slap down on this one.

As was mentioned, market share is irrelevant to the determination of antitrust. But even if it was relevant, the competing market absolutely is not mobile devices. Feature phones and their ilk are not even remotely comparable to smartphones. The competing market would be iOS/Android/BB/WP7/Symbian/WebOS devices. Most notably, this would include the iPod touch and iPad (as well as Android PMPs and tablets). Once you round all those out, you're looking much closer to a 70%-80% market share, which would at least qualify as a dominant firm monopoly.

Meh, it's pretty hard to define the market here. I wouldn't lump iPod Touch's or iPads in with iPhones, despite the fact that they run iOS...a smartphone operates in a different space, with different competition. Same for Android PMPs/tablets, of course. Then you have the question of whether an iPad (or other tablet) is in competition with, say, netbooks (or even laptops)...which would reduce their marketshare.

Besides, I can easily avoid Apple's products entirely (though I own an iPod...Classic, that is...not counting my beat up old PowerBook) and have no problems interoperating with others. It's not like Microsoft, which had a de facto monopoly over computers in general, because interoperability is key and that meant (for most) running Windows.

I can buy a Windows laptop, buy a Zune (or other brand of PMP), and an Android smartphone (or Blackberry), and a Kindle, or Nook, and none of this will severely limit me from communicating with others or accomplishing what those devices were meant to accomplish.

The comparison is, really, pretty absurd. Anticompetitive practices only matter if you have actual market dominance; David plays by different rules than Goliath. Apple is not Microsoft, so they can do things Microsoft cannot.